• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

6 Million Americans Without a Voice

ocean515 said:
Excuse me for stepping in, but why is the loss of voting also not part of the debt owed to society? Seems to me, people determined the debt owed to society was not only the fine and incarceration part, but also the voting rights part. Why are you trying to exclude that from the "debt owed" portion?
Click to expand...

Since voting is the single fundamental right in a democracy, I'd say the burden on you is to justify why it should be included.
 
Cardinal said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you would lead with the Spirit of the Constitution, given that the Constitution pretty explicitly left this to State governments, and intended to.
 
ocean515 said:
Excuse me for stepping in, but why is the loss of voting also not part of the debt owed to society? Seems to me, people determined the debt owed to society was not only the fine and incarceration part, but also the voting rights part. Why are you trying to exclude that from the "debt owed" portion?
Click to expand...

Because calling it a "debt" is misleading if you can never repay it. It also carries with it the assumption that every crime is deserving of that debt. It's a zero-sum position that is no different than "why shouldn't all felons be imprisoned for life?"
 
Deuce said:
Since voting is the single fundamental right in a democracy, I'd say the burden on you is to justify why it should be included.
Click to expand...

1. We do not - thank God - live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.

2. The ability to exercise the franchise is not the single fundamental right. If you were going to argue for one, that one would probably be self-defense, or speech. You do not have a right to vote. You have a right not to have the vote taken from you for a variety of explicitly and narrowly defined reasons.
 
Does anyone think that Holder isn't doing this because felons would be an overwhelming Democrat constituency?
 
Deuce said:
Since voting is the single fundamental right in a democracy, I'd say the burden on you is to justify why it should be included.
Click to expand...

Well good for you. However, I have no such burden. I haven't voted on the issue, nor even voiced an opinion on the issue.

My only comment was in reference to the false statement that once a person has served their time, and/or paid their fines, their debt to society is complete. Obsiously it isn't. The loss of voting rights is part of that debt owed to society.

One could argue that's too big a "fine", but to claim the debt owed is has been paid in full is clearly wrong.
 
Perotista said:
Common Types of Felonies
The most common types of felonies are assault/battery involving actual or intended serious bodily harm, all degrees of murder, kidnapping, serious drug crimes, racketeering, conspiracy and embezzlement of large sums of money.

So these are the people that holder is fighting to allow to vote. Hmm, I think this speaks volumns about Holder and his agenda. He doesn't seem to be inclined about the normal, average American much does he?
Click to expand...

Philosophically, my view is that once prison is over, a citizen should regain full citizenry, right to own a gun, right to vote, and more often than not have their records sealed so they can attempt to gain normal employment. While a lot of people will disagree, I see nothing less as just.
 
cpwill said:
1. We do not - thank God - live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.

2. The ability to exercise the franchise is not the single fundamental right. If you were going to argue for one, that one would probably be self-defense, or speech. You do not have a right to vote. You have a right not to have the vote taken from you for a variety of explicitly and narrowly defined reasons.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The 15th amendment specifically states that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
 
cpwill said:
Does anyone think that Holder isn't doing this because felons would be an overwhelming Democrat constituency?
Click to expand...

Two can play that game. Does anyone think that conservatives aren't coming to the defense of voter disenfranchisement because of their belief that it ultimately helps the Republican party?

Or would you like to stick to the defensibility of the laws themselves?
 
Cardinal said:
Incorrect. The 15th amendment specifically states that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Click to expand...

Leaves open the opportunity to abridge the right to vote for other reasons. "Race, color and previous condition of servitude does not cover conviction of a felony." And you and I have already been through Section 2, 14th. One just can't pretend that doesn't exist.
 
MaggieD said:
Leaves open the opportunity to abridge the right to vote for other reasons. "Race, color and previous condition of servitude does not cover conviction of a felony." And you and I have already been through Section 2, 14th. One just can't pretend that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

The argument that imprisonment can be included under servitude can be made, and the 15th clearly applies to both state and Federal.
 
Cardinal said:
The argument that imprisonment can be included under servitude can be made, and the 15th clearly applies to both state and Federal.
Click to expand...

What?? The origin of the WORD means slave.
 
Cardinal said:
Because calling it a "debt" is misleading if you can never repay it. It also carries with it the assumption that every crime is deserving of that debt. It's a zero-sum position that is no different than "why shouldn't all felons be imprisoned for life?"
Click to expand...

Is it not true that some debts can never be repaid in full?

It would seem people believed part of the debt owed to society for conviction of a felony was to lose voting rights. There are some good reasons this particular debt is a good one. However, like most things, I would imagine there are examples where such a debt would seem to be too much.
 
Cardinal said:
Two can play that game. Does anyone think that conservatives aren't coming to the defense of voter disenfranchisement because of their belief that it ultimately helps the Republican party?

Or would you like to stick to the defensibility of the laws themselves?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would think it helps the republicans enormously that illegals, felons and folks without ID can't vote. Also, seems to help them when fewer of the dead vote too. Your argument isn't becoming more defensible.
 
Deuce said:
I know a guy who got charged with assault because he got in an altercation with a bouncer while drunk, at the age of 22.

Never gets to vote again. His whole life.
Click to expand...

Governors can pardon people if it is something like this. But for the most part it is not.
 
Cardinal said:
The argument that imprisonment can be included under servitude can be made, and the 15th clearly applies to both state and Federal.
Click to expand...

Not by anyone with knowledge of the language or the Constitution.
 
MaggieD said:
What?? The origin of the WORD means slave.
Click to expand...

Cpwill attempted to make the argument that voting was not a right, when the 15th amendment clearly states that neither the Federal nor State can prohibit it. Period.
 
tacomancer said:
Philosophically, my view is that once prison is over, a citizen should regain full citizenry, right to own a gun, right to vote, and more often than not have their records sealed so they can attempt to gain normal employment. While a lot of people will disagree, I see nothing less as just.
Click to expand...

Perhaps after a time and depending on the crime. Some crimes do not deserve having their record sealed, other do. I am willing to apply common sense to this issue and not condemn everyone who committed a felony to never being able to vote again. But in my mind the felon first must prove he is able to adjust to society in a non-violent manner for a time period. What that time period would be, I have no idea. Perhaps it could just depend on the crime, the felony committed.
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps after a time and depending on the crime. Some crimes do not deserve having their record sealed, other do. I am willing to apply common sense to this issue and not condemn everyone who committed a felony to never being able to vote again. But in my mind the felon first must prove he is able to adjust to society in a non-violent manner for a time period. What that time period would be, I have no idea. Perhaps it could just depend on the crime, the felony committed.
Click to expand...

That's fair, they should pass their time of parole or whatever after prison. I can agree to that.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, I would think it helps the republicans enormously that illegals, felons and folks without ID can't vote. Also, seems to help them when fewer of the dead vote too. Your argument isn't becoming more defensible.
Click to expand...

So now you're equating ex-felons being allowed to vote with voter fraud?

Your position is not just absurd but disturbingly confused.
 
ocean515 said:
Is it not true that some debts can never be repaid in full?

It would seem people believed part of the debt owed to society for conviction of a felony was to lose voting rights. There are some good reasons this particular debt is a good one. However, like most things, I would imagine there are examples where such a debt would seem to be too much.
Click to expand...

The question is, why append further punishments to the sentence? Is the sentence the sentence or not?
 
tacomancer said:
That's fair, they should pass their time of parole or whatever after prison. I can agree to that.
Click to expand...

I was never one to like this zero tolerance stuff. Zero tolerance becomes a farce after awhile like a 8 year old child pointing his finger at another child out on the school playground and getting suspended from school. I think each instance should be looked at instance by instance, individual by individual. Blanket laws and regulations do not leave enough leeway to be just. Just like zero tolerance.
 
Cardinal said:
So now you're equating ex-felons being allowed to vote with voter fraud?

Your position is not just absurd but disturbingly confused.
Click to expand...

Not confused at all and I didn't equate anything. The only similarity those groups have is that none of those mentioned vote republican. I was agreeing with YOUR point:

Originally Posted by Cardinal
Two can play that game. Does anyone think that conservatives aren't coming to the defense of voter disenfranchisement because of their belief that it ultimately helps the Republican party?
Click to expand...
 
Perotista said:
I was never one to like this zero tolerance stuff. Zero tolerance becomes a farce after awhile like a 8 year old child pointing his finger at another child out on the school playground and getting suspended from school. I think each instance should be looked at instance by instance, individual by individual. Blanket laws and regulations do not leave enough leeway to be just. Just like zero tolerance.
Click to expand...

my thought is, yes while a person may be a hardened criminal and its not always easy for a parole board to tell the difference or anything like that. If we want people to not return to prison in as high a rate, then give them a normal shot at a normal life after prison. Besides, they did their crime, they paid the time. When I punish my kids, when its over, i never mention it again and resume normal relations. This allows people to learn from their mistakes.
 
Cardinal said:
The question is, why append further punishments to the sentence? Is the sentence the sentence or not?
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it. There is no appending in the argument you're responding to. Losing the vote is part of the sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom